“No one here has said that. Millions of red necks believe it, however.”

I think it’s a bad place to start if you are aiming your comments at ‘red necks’. Lets just stay focused on the issue at hand, and we can keep personal or stereotypical judgments to ourselves.

“If atheists stereotype all muslims as terrorists that would give them (the atheists) a bad name… But it is what Sam Harris does “

“There have been people who confuse one billion muslims with a fraction of a per cent of muslims who are murderers.”

I feel like Harris addressed this comment in the radio segment? He shows a pretty clear understanding of the difference between a moderate and extremist. It’s one thing to say that all Muslims are terrorists, and a completely other thing to say that all Muslims stem their faith from the Koran. Is it wrong to analyze the implications of the latter? No one here seems to accuse all Muslims of being terrorists. Rather, we are merely looking into the text that motivates the martyr.

“This mosque isn’t particularly important. But it is crucially important that the cobwebs built up over centuries that have protected religious ideology from the sunlight in the cultural arena, be forcefully cleared away.”

Case and point.

“I’m not even slightly interested in getting into an ad hominem exchange about who can slice an onion thinner, or even delving in depth into Hitler’s Christian upbringing in Austria.”

I wouldn’t mind hearing more on that actually…

“Unless there is evidence the people who are opening up the new “mosque” are terrorists or affiliated in some way with terrorists, or otherwise criminals, then it is none of anyone else’s business, since this is private property.”

The affiliation, though be it a subtle one, is seen in the religious practice that lay at the core of both the terrorists and the GZM.

“Small minorities, like publicly professed atheists, have the most to lose if freedom of religion is not upheld as a Constitutionally guaranteed right for ALL.”

Lets look at a hypothetical - If the mosque was being built by those who directly support the acts of terror, would you defend their constitutional right to build their mosque?

“By the end of the show, he was so enraged at not having gotten to say all he wanted, that he went really over the line. “Who has a doctorate in Islamic studies here?”

yeah, that was funny as hell… hence my comment “...Aslan is, after all, the expert

...“Unless there is evidence the people who are opening up the new “mosque” are terrorists or affiliated in some way with terrorists, or otherwise criminals, then it is none of anyone else’s business, since this is private property.”

The affiliation, though be it a subtle one, is seen in the religious practice that lay at the core of both the terrorists and the GZM. ...

Stereotyping. Generalizing. Like associating atheists with communists, who were murderers, and therefore denying atheists the right to a meeting place near GZ. Or denying Catholics the Constitutional right to have a church directly across from GZ because their “holy book” contains calls to violence, or many hundreds if not thousands of their leaders are known child molesters or those who covered up child-molesting.

And it’s queer that 3 out of 6 who answered the poll here missed the point entirely - that of freedom of religion.

Maybe if the poll had more properly read “Do muslims have a Constitutional right to have a mosque near GZ or anywhere else in the U.S., as long as all relevant laws are followed?” then could we have gotten 6 out of 6 “yes” replies”? I don’t think I wish to debate with those who would answer “No” to that question. It would like trying to argue with a republican tea-bagger or similar fool/hypocrite.

dyamihayes - 22 August 2010 02:22 PM

...“Small minorities, like publicly professed atheists, have the most to lose if freedom of religion is not upheld as a Constitutionally guaranteed right for ALL.”

Lets look at a hypothetical - If the mosque was being built by those who directly support the acts of terror, would you defend their constitutional right to build their mosque?

...

Hypothetically, the law must be followed - and enforced if not followed. If those “who directly support the acts of terror” are in violation of some law, they should be arrested. If not, then not.

Is that clear enough, or do you have more objections to the concept of freedom of religion?

And it’s queer that 3 out of 6 who answered the poll here missed the point entirely - that of freedom of religion…. Maybe if the poll had more properly read “Do muslims have a Constitutional right to have a mosque near GZ or anywhere else in the U.S., as long as all relevant laws are followed?” then could we have gotten 6 out of 6 “yes” replies”? I don’t think I wish to debate with those who would answer “No” to that question.

First, let me assure you I answered YES to the Poll question - so you don’t have to worry about me being too much of a fool/hypocrite. Second, would you agree that just because something is legal does not mean it is right? So when one asks ‘Should such and such happen’ it is not the same as asking ‘is it legal’. For instance, if I were to ask should Man A be able to marry Man B, that is not exactly the same as asking is it legal. Of course, the legality is very important, but not all laws are perfect and sometimes the legal thing to do is going to be the wrong thing to do. Hence the point of my hypothetical. Even if it were legal, I do not think it would be right for Islamic fundamentalists who fully support their holy text to build a mosque a couple blocks from where their jihad took place.

If those “who directly support the acts of terror” are in violation of some law, they should be arrested. If not, then not.

What if owning a slave were in no violation of law… would you simply support it because it was constitutional?

Atheism to Communism is far from the same comparison as Islamic Moderate to Islamic Extremist. The difference in one is the mere interpretation of the same text, whereas the other requires a much more vivid imagination to compare similarly…

In re the mosque with the national flags of “Muslim countries”, I don’t like how religion tends to entwine itself with notions of national, racial, and ethnic identity. I don’t think expressions like “Muslim blood” (Imam Rauf, as if Muslims’ blood were of a different color or constitution from others’) or “Christian child” have any place in a civilized conversation.

No one doubts that the press should be free to satirize. But freedom of the press cannot excuse the promotion of noxious stereotypes.

. . .

As international human rights law recognizes, in any democratic society freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility, particularly at a time when the world seems to be engaged in a “war of ideology,” to use President Bush’s words.

. . .

And that is why as a Muslim American I am enraged by the publication of these cartoons. Not because they offend my prophet or my religion, but because they fly in the face of the tireless efforts of so many civic and religious leaders—both Muslim and non-Muslim—to promote unity and assimilation rather than hatred and discord; because they play into the hands of those who preach extremism; because they are fodder for the clash-of-civilizations mentality that pits East against West. For all of that I blame Jyllands-Posten.

The GZM fracas apparently began with Daisy Khan, Imam Rauf’s wife, appearing on Fox News to curry favor with lunatic Christian personality Laura Ingraham. In the interview (link below), Khan says that her war is not with other believers, but rather with “people who disbelieve,” who are “ignorant against God.” Unfortunately for Khan, she radically overestimated Ms. Ingraham’s ecumenicalism. The interview blew up in Khan’s face and she got a taste of her own intolerant medicine.

I would find her comments amusing if it weren’t for Islam’s past and current treatment of apostates and those who are not “people of the book.” I’m now even less sympathetic to her than I was before.

Although Malaysia is constitutionally secular with a modern constitution, Ramesh Rao points out that the reality on the ground is bleak, including intense government discrimination toward Hindus—

The Hindu American Foundation, in its annual Human Rights Reports, has carefully documented the discrimination against Hindus. A few examples will suffice. On August 4, 2010 Judicial Commissioner Yaakob Sam pronounced that 28 year-old Banggarma, a Hindu mother, was is officially a “Muslim” despite her plea that she is a Hindu. According to the judge, the document that she was converted to Islam, at the age of eight, and while in an orphanage is enough to prove that she is a Muslim! How could Banggarma, as an abandoned eight-year old in an orphanage, be considered competent to have made such a decision voluntarily?

On August 15, 2010, Waytha Murthy, President of Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF), wrote in a memo to the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh requesting 2,237 full scholarships and seats in universities in India for Malaysian-Indian students segregated and denied scholarships, student loans, and refused seats in colleges and universities by the Malaysian Government.

There was also an article in the NY Times in 2006 about Islamicization creeping over Malaysia’s secular roots—

Muslim prayers are piped into the loudspeakers of government offices in the new administrative capital, Putrajaya. And Islamic police officers routinely arrest unmarried couples for “close proximity.”

“I see the writing on the wall,” said Ivy Josiah, the director of the Women’s Aid Organization, a group that lobbies the government on women’s issues. “It’s only a matter of time before Malaysia becomes another Taliban state.”